Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[D3thray]

Stocks aren’t real money. Stocks aren’t real money. Stocks aren’t real money. I’ll say it one more time for those in the back, stocks aren’t real money. They only have value when sold. They are merely potential and nothing else. Potential has value to some which is why banks will allow them as collateral but the inherently have zero value.

Don’t believe me? Ask yourself what happens if everyone decided to sell all their stocks today. Do you think they just call up Wall Street and ask to withdraw their money? Firstly there isn’t enough real money in the entire US economy to cover all those stocks. Secondly if everyone is selling, no one is buying and they’re all worth zero dollars.

Think of the stock market as a massively over leveraged bank. It only works if the vast majority of stocks aren’t being sold. And good luck going to the store to buy a sandwich with a stock certificate.

[Machismo]

What does that have to do with my pointing out that, for example Bezos who is frequently talked about, doesn't meet the fictional situation you created?



Like what? I mean, the guy has $1B in Amazon stock he can draw from without touching anything he owns/is a majority investor in (which I'm not even sure what the full list is).

Please show how it would "quite literally" force him to sell his companies, because spending 30 seconds looking him up on Google sure indicates that it is not the case.



Aren't you the one spending dozens of pages complaining about others misrepresenting your arguments and positions? You'd think you wouldn't do the same for others, but here we are.

Yes, he does. He has about 10% between liquidity, and non-Amazon assets (just verified), so that would be gone in less than 2 years. Since this is a plan that would last forever, in less than two years, no matter what, he would have to dig into the stocks of the company he founded. Sure, he has 11%, and in 2 years, it would be about 10%. About 2-3 years after that, 9%. 3 years after that, 8%. Now, he's 57, so extrapolate that out for 30 years.

That's why it's a terrible fucking idea, and it's forcing him to sell his company, the one he built.

So, do you care that he'd have to sell off the company he founded, piece by piece? If so, then why do you want to force him to do it?

[Edge-]

He has about 10% between liquidity, and non-Amazon assets (just verified), so that would be gone in less than 2 years.

Where are you seeing this? You demand evidence from us, so show yours.

Since this is a plan that would last forever, in less than two years, no matter what, he would have to dig into the stocks of the company he founded.

What company is that?

Sure, he has 11%, and in 2 years, it would be about 10%.

He doesn't "own" Amazon, dude. And as his wealth decreases so does the tax on the wealth.

That's why it's a terrible fucking idea, and it's forcing him to sell his company, the one he built.

Again, what company? He doesn't own Amazon, just shares in Amazon, so which company is he being forced to sell?

[Machismo]

No, I'm sorry you didn't. The same people who argue that taxing stocks somehow would collapse the economy are the people who argue in favor of the total fucking failure that trickle down economics has been.



First of all. The tax doesn't actually force you to sell anything necessarily. It does incentivize increasing your personal income, that income can easily come from dividends or earnings. Furthermore even if you are forced to sell some of your stake to pay your taxes that doesn't in effect do anything negative to a company. Let's say Amazon, Amazon's success has fuck all to do with whether Jeff Bezos holds 200b in stocks or 189b in stocks. That 11b didn't vanish from the market capitalization of the company. It just went on the market. Hell, Bezos might even effectively offset that if the dividends and earnings from his stocks were higher than whatever he had to pay in taxes.

Having a higher tax on stocks would actually incentivize higher earnings on stocks. Because currently it's more preferable to have low earnings and high stock value.



We can have a conversation about whether 6% is too high or too low, but we first need to agree that there needs to be a tax on wealth held in stocks. There's no point in discussing percentages until we actually agree on taxing stocks.



EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRNNNNNNNNNNNNINNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSS.

Earnings.

Earnings.



Actually....I think that's a pretty decent idea. Local taxes should probably be limited to way fewer things, like....a sales tax or things like a sugar tax and such. Or eliminated altogether. Like, the simple fact that school districts are funded locally has contributed massively to our dysfunctional public education system. Instead taxes should be collected federally and then redistributed using a system where part of the redistribution is allocated based on need. This would allow us to for example FIX OUR FUCKING INFRASTRUCTURE and to FIX SHITTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS and do other things like DEAL WITH FUCKING HOMELESSNESS.

Just because we are doing something one way right now, it doesn't mean we are doing it right.



One more mother fucking time. The fundamental problem is that an economic infrastructure was created where stocks are never sold, because once you are above wealth threshold you no longer neeeeeeeeeeeeed to sell anything to access effectively infinite tax free liquidity. That's the problem we are trying to address.



Yes. We should. Just as we do, with other things........LIKE REAL ESTATE.

The stock is already being taxed... when it's sold.

It's quite literally forcing people to sell the companies they founded.

The fact that you don't realize that it forces you to sell, is the problem. It means you have no clue about liquidity, or you simply don't give a shit where they come up with the funds to pay that tax. If Bezos literally sold all his other assets, he'd still have less than two years, before he'd be forced to sell his company stock.

That's a simple fact of reality that Warren and her sycophants just don't realize (or that's exactly what they want).

[Mihalik]

Stocks aren’t real money. Stocks aren’t real money. Stocks aren’t real money. I’ll say it one more time for those in the back, stocks aren’t real money. They only have value when sold. They are merely potential and nothing else. Potential has value to some which is why banks will allow them as collateral but the inherently have zero value.

And what has been explained here a million times to you is that we are in a situation where if you are rich enough, stocks are as good as money. Because we created an economic system where you can borrow against it at no cost and live like you've had all that liquidity in hand.

But this little gimmick is only available to those who have a lot of fucking stocks. Like millions and billion of dollars worth of it.

That's why it's a tax dodge for millionaires and billionaires only.

[Edge-]

It's quite literally forcing people to sell the companies they founded.

Except that most don't "own" the companies still, see Jeff Bezos and his minority stake in Amazon. This is a strawman argument.

[Mihalik]

The stock is already being taxed... when it's sold.

One more time. I'm going to repeat this until you get it.

One more mother fucking time. The fundamental problem is that an economic infrastructure was created where stocks are never sold, because once you are above a wealth threshold you no longer neeeeeeeeeeeeed to sell anything to access effectively infinite tax free liquidity. That's the problem we are trying to address.

Did something break inside your brain? Or you just chose not to acknowledge the existence of the problem?

[Machismo]

Where are you seeing this? You demand evidence from us, so show yours.



What company is that?



He doesn't "own" Amazon, dude. And as his wealth decreases so does the tax on the wealth.



Again, what company? He doesn't own Amazon, just shares in Amazon, so which company is he being forced to sell?

Very well:

Jeff Bezos is worth roughly $190 billion. It fluctuates a lot, daily... because it's tied to his Amazon stock.

https://www.investopedia.com/article...ople-world.asp

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/...ing-tesla-musk

He owns 51.7 million shares of stock, valued at $3,345.

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AMZN?p=AMZN

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/je...f%20the%20week.

So, multiple 51.7 million, times the value, and you get $172.9 million tied up in Amazon stock. That is 90% of his total net worth (about 90.4). That means the other 9.6% is other investments, as well as his liquid assets, and his other assets (homes, plane, couches, comic book collections).

So, if the goal is to tax that at 6%, which Warren's goal does state:

https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/ultra-millionaire-tax

That puts it t 6% of 191 million, or $11.4 million, just in the first year. S0, of the $18.1 billion that isn't Amazon, $11.4 billion of that would have to be used to pay that tax alone.

Now, let's move forward a year (this works, regardless of whether his worth goes up or down). He now has $6.7 billion in non-Amazon assets, but his tax burden is still going to be about $11.4 billion. Now, that burden could be much, much more, or it could even be a bit less, if Amazon were to drop a bit. But, let's say that his company grew by exactly 6%, he'd have to come up with $11.4 billion.

Since he only has $6.7 billion in non-amazon assets, he is then forced to sell his Amazon stock... after only two years. Meanwhile, he's 57, which means he has 30 years to live. Feel free to extrapolate from there. But, after a mere two years, he's already forced to sell stock in the very company he founded.

- - - Updated - - -

And what has been explained here a million times to you is that we are in a situation where if you are rich enough, stocks are as good as money. Because we created an economic system where you can borrow against it at no cost and live like you've had all that liquidity in hand.

But this little gimmick is only available to those who have a lot of fucking stocks. Like millions and billion of dollars worth of it.

That's why it's a tax dodge for millionaires and billionaires only.

So, does that mean you want to get rid of capital gains on stocks?

- - - Updated - - -

Except that most don't "own" the companies still, see Jeff Bezos and his minority stake in Amazon. This is a strawman argument.

I have mathematically shown that he would be forced to sell Amazon stock in less than two years.

Do you care?

My guess is you do not.

- - - Updated - - -

One more time. I'm going to repeat this until you get it.



Did something break inside your brain? Or you just chose not to acknowledge the existence of the problem?

It's not effectively infinite, I want to see your evidence on that.

[Edge-]

Very well:

Jeff Bezos is worth roughly $190 billion. It fluctuates a lot, daily... because it's tied to his Amazon stock.

Again, Jeff Bezos does not "own" Amazon, he has 11% of shares - https://www.investopedia.com/article...lders-amzn.asp

He can't sell "his" company if he doesn't own a majority of the shares to make it "his" company.

Compare that to Zuckerberg who owns about 58% of shares (at least voting shares) and you have a dude who ACTUALY owns the company given his majority ownership of the stock.

You're acting like needing to sell a few hundred/thousand shares is asking them to go into poverty or lose control of something they never had control over to begin with.

I have mathematically shown that he would be forced to sell Amazon stock in less than two years.

Do you care?

My guess is you do not.

That he'll have to sell off some shares? No, I don't. Because that's pretty regular/routine shit for anyone come tax season if they owe taxes and don't have the liquid cash to cover it. Will he still own most of his shares? Yes. Will he still be fabulously wealthy? Yes. Will it negatively impact him or his ability to invest in new ventures? No.

[Machismo]

Again, Jeff Bezos does not "own" Amazon, he has 11% of shares - https://www.investopedia.com/article...lders-amzn.asp

He can't sell "his" company if he doesn't own a majority of the shares to make it "his" company.

Compare that to Zuckerberg who owns about 58% of shares (at least voting shares) and you have a dude who ACTUALY owns the company given his majority ownership of the stock.

You're acting like needing to sell a few hundred/thousand shares is asking them to go into poverty or lose control of something they never had control over to begin with.



That he'll have to sell off some shares? No, I don't. Because that's pretty regular/routine shit for anyone come tax season if they owe taxes and don't have the liquid cash to cover it. Will he still own most of his shares? Yes. Will he still be fabulously wealthy? Yes. Will it negatively impact him or his ability to invest in new ventures? No.

You asked for the math, the math was given. I proved he'd be forced to sell shares after less than two years. That would continue until he died.

Of course you don't care, because this is all about your hate boner for the wealthy.

Selling shares, every fucking year... of the company he fucking founded.

But hey, at least I provided the math as to why all of this is so fucking despicable.

[Edge-]

You asked for the math, the math was given. I proved he'd be forced to sell shares after less than two years. That would continue until he died.

No, you're continuing to completely ignore that you claim people will have to sell "their company" yet still have yet to show any evidence of this. Selling some stock, especially in a company they didn't found/don't actually own isn't "selling their company".

This is moving to, "They'll have to sell stock!" which like...yeah, that's the point.

Of course you don't care, because this is all about your hate boner for the wealthy.

Again, for a guy that spends a lot of time whining about people misrepresenting his positions/views you sure spend a lot of time misrepresenting others positions/views.

Selling shares, every fucking year... of the company he fucking founded.

...and? I still fail to see the big issue here that isn't, "He'll have to sell stock!" which you haven't established is an actual problem yet without resorting to slogans like "HIS LIBERTY!" which are completely devoid of meaning and value.

[Mihalik]

sip

So, does that mean you want to get rid of capital gains on stocks?

Who said that? Literally nobody here said that. On the contrary. What I said is that I'd much rather see lower gains on stock values and higher earnings payments to shift some of the capital gains out of the stock market and into the rest of the economy.

It's not effectively infinite, I want to see your evidence on that.

It's a figure of speech for fuck sake.

Yes, it's not technically infinite, but it's "infinite" enough for Bezos to buy a 500m yacht if he wants to without selling a single a share or even really pay anything in interest.

[Kryctos]

Stocks aren’t real money. Stocks aren’t real money. Stocks aren’t real money. I’ll say it one more time for those in the back, stocks aren’t real money. They only have value when sold. They are merely potential and nothing else. Potential has value to some which is why banks will allow them as collateral but the inherently have zero value.

Don’t believe me? Ask yourself what happens if everyone decided to sell all their stocks today. Do you think they just call up Wall Street and ask to withdraw their money? Firstly there isn’t enough real money in the entire US economy to cover all those stocks. Secondly if everyone is selling, no one is buying and they’re all worth zero dollars.

Think of the stock market as a massively over leveraged bank. It only works if the vast majority of stocks aren’t being sold. And good luck going to the store to buy a sandwich with a stock certificate.

Money has no value its just paper. If the US breaks down in a civil war and all states split the us dollar would be worth as much as a cuban peso. Hypothecical examples based in fiction are fun.

[Machismo]

No, you're continuing to completely ignore that you claim people will have to sell "their company" yet still have yet to show any evidence of this. Selling some stock, especially in a company they didn't found/don't actually own isn't "selling their company".

This is moving to, "They'll have to sell stock!" which like...yeah, that's the point.



Again, for a guy that spends a lot of time whining about people misrepresenting his positions/views you sure spend a lot of time misrepresenting others positions/views.



...and? I still fail to see the big issue here that isn't, "He'll have to sell stock!" which you haven't established is an actual problem yet without resorting to slogans like "HIS LIBERTY!" which are completely devoid of meaning and value.

I literally provided the fucking math.

So, you wanted to invoke Zuckerberg.

He's worth $120 billion, with literally almost all of it in Facebook stock (over 90%). So, the exact same goes for him.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think for one second that you give a shit about forcing this. I think this is exactly what you want. I also think it's fucking evil. I think you'd feel the same way for someone like Lynsi Snyder, who owns her entire company.

It's not an issue to you, because the results of Warren's asstastic plan are a feature for you, not a sad consequence. Remember, you want to eat the rich, and forcing them to sell their companies (, or if you prefer, the companies they founded and built), is perfectly aligned with your evil plans.

- - - Updated - - -

Who said that? Literally nobody here said that. On the contrary. What I said is that I'd much rather see lower gains on stock values and higher earnings payments to shift some of the capital gains out of the stock market and into the rest of the economy.



It's a figure of speech for fuck sake.

Yes, it's not technically infinite, but it's "infinite" enough for Bezos to buy a 500m yacht if he wants to without selling a single a share or even really pay anything in interest.

Great, then you want double taxation, which means you must want the same for all assets.

Or, are you calling for double standards?

Imagine having to give the federal government $60k when you sold your house... that would be fucking hilarious.

You're literally whining that he's got collateral.

[Edge-]

I literally provided the fucking math.

You writing some napkin math doesn't mean much, dude.

He's worth $120 billion, with literally almost all of it in Facebook stock (over 90%). So, the exact same goes for him.

Alright...and? He's already pledged to give away 99% of his stake over his lifetime but we'll ignore that.

https://www.investopedia.com/article...ople-world.asp

$3B in cash and another quarter billion in real estate. That's a lot to go through before he even has to consider liquidating some of his stock which he's already planned to liquidate.

Remember, you want to eat the rich, and forcing them to sell their companies (, or if you prefer, the companies they founded and built), is perfectly aligned with your evil plans.

In which you continue to claim people will be forced to sell companies but still have yet to actually show any real evidence that anyone who actually owns their publicly traded company (i.e. 50.01%+ of voting/total stock) would lose control over the company. You moving the goalposts to "founding/build" doesn't change anything, it's just backpedaling.

[Machismo]

You writing some napkin math doesn't mean much, dude.



Alright...and? He's already pledged to give away 99% of his stake over his lifetime but we'll ignore that.

https://www.investopedia.com/article...ople-world.asp

$3B in cash and another quarter billion in real estate. That's a lot to go through before he even has to consider liquidating some of his stock which he's already planned to liquidate.



In which you continue to claim people will be forced to sell companies but still have yet to actually show any real evidence that anyone who actually owns their publicly traded company (i.e. 50.01%+ of voting/total stock) would lose control over the company. You moving the goalposts to "founding/build" doesn't change anything, it's just backpedaling.

I provided you with the fucking links to back up my fucking math.

Can you refute the fucking math? Please, do so.

So, let's look at Lynsi Snyder, she's worth $3.6 billion, with HER company amounting to over 80% of that. She is the sole owner of her company. She easily has 40 years of life left. So, would you like to do the math to figure out how long she has, before you want to force her to sell her company?

Here's a hint, it's about 5-6 years, at best.

[Slant]

Once again, you're blaming me, because I'm taking them at their word, then blaming me, because I'm not using the words in the way they want to pretend they mean, instead of their actual meaning.

This is you demanding I cater to their willful ignorance, and pretend that words mean different things, because they cannot be bothered to learn definitions.

I'm not blaming you. I think you can't help it. I'm not talking about semantics. You don't grasp the fundamental issue here. You grasp on semantics, because that's the only thing that sounds remotely familiar to you. The concepts that these guys are talking about are as alien to you as me suggesting the sun won't rise tomorrow.

I am not demanding anything. I am telling you that you are not part of this discussion until you acknowledge what people are saying and honestly respond to that, instead of bullshitting like you did for the past 80 pages. These guys are really trying not to get into partisanship bullshit, but you can't seem to leave the trench man, you can't even for a hypothetical discuss something that has nothing to do with partisanship. Because you are so indoctrinated, it's drilled so deep into your mind that everything is an agenda that you just can't fathom that someone might explore an idea just for the academic sense of having discussed it. To see if it might inspire other, more feasible ideas.

The only thing offensive in this discussion is really how rude you are.

[Machismo]

I'm not blaming you. I think you can't help it. I'm not talking about semantics. You don't grasp the fundamental issue here. You grasp on semantics, because that's the only thing that sounds remotely familiar to you. The concepts that these guys are talking about are as alien to you as me suggesting the sun won't rise tomorrow.

I am not demanding anything. I am telling you that you are not part of this discussion until you acknowledge what people are saying and honestly respond to that, instead of bullshitting like you did for the past 80 pages. These guys are really trying not to get into partisanship bullshit, but you can't seem to leave the trench man, you can't even for a hypothetical discuss something that has nothing to do with partisanship. Because you are so indoctrinated, it's drilled so deep into your mind that everything is an agenda that you just can't fathom that someone might explore an idea just for the academic sense of having discussed it. To see if it might inspire other, more feasible ideas.

The only thing offensive in this discussion is really how rude you are.

It's a shame you want to force Lynsi Snyder to sell In&Out Burger.

[Slant]

It's a shame you want to force Lynsi Snyder to sell In& Out Burger.

And again, you are throwing out random buzzphrases that have no meaning. I mean, they have no meaning to me specifically, like none whatsoever, but they also have no meaning in general. You haven't read my text, you have not grasped the point of what I am saying. With no syllable are you acknowledging even the tiniest bit of it. All you see is a big block of text and then... I don't know, randomly throw something into the room in the hope that it's close enough to be considered a contribution to the conversation.

If I talked to an ape, it would be the same result. I'm not saying you're an ape or that you have the intelligence of an ape, that's not what I'm saying at all. But I am saying talking to an ape would have the same net result.

[Machismo]

And again, you are throwing out random buzzphrases that have no meaning. I mean, they have no meaning to me specifically, like none whatsoever, but they also have no meaning in general. You haven't read my text, you have not grasped the point of what I am saying. With no syllable are you acknowledging even the tiniest bit of it. All you see is a big block of text and then... I don't know, randomly throw something into the room in the hope that it's close enough to be considered a contribution to the conversation.

If I talked to an ape, it would be the same result. I'm not saying you're an ape or that you have the intelligence of an ape, that's not what I'm saying at all. But I am saying talking to an ape would have the same net result.

She's worth more than a billion, and you made it clear what you wat to happen.

You'll notice, that I've stopped actually caring what you have to say, because you're literally defending lies and ignorance, and trying to blame me for it.